[anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-
> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of russ at consumer.net
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 4:17 PM
> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net

> I
> tried to respond to an e-mail from the network you ran and it was
> blocked.  Your abuse desk told me other people on my netblock were
> spammers and I was supposed to go to my hosting provider and
> somehow
> make it stop.    I had no idea (or power) to do anything about it
> and I
> had no idea what anyone else on the netblock was doing.  When I ask
> for
> proof of the claims you never sent anything or explained further
> (although you did unblock me).  These are some of the crazy stunts
> pulled by abuse departments that has no basis in law or common
> sense.

A network accepting mail from another network is extending the latter a 
privilege. It is extremely common sense to block networks from which spam or 
other abuse is detected. If you really would like to argue that such 
blocking is illegal, the burden of proof is on you.

-- 
Thor Kottelin
http://www.anta.net/